01 January 2018 11:38 AM

Justin Welby's astonishing refusal to accept the outcome of a report he commissioned

I'm posting this item from my Sunday column as a stand-alone article, because it seems to me that the Archbishop of Canterbury's refusal to accept the outcome of the independent inquiry by Lord Carlile QC - which he himself commissioned - into the George Bell case has become a scandal in its own right.

Not only is it shocking for a man in such a position to reject a report he asked for, and whose author he presumably helped to choose. It is , er, highly disingenuous for the Archbishop to have said (as he did ): 'Lord Carlile does not seek to say whether George Bell was in fact responsible for for the acts about which the complaint was made'. This is not because Lord Carlile reached no conclusions on that issue. It is because Lord Carlile was narrowly limited in his terms of reference to examining the process by which the Church condemned George Bell. In fact it is plain from the Carlile report that George Bell was condemned on inadequate evidence, sloppily and unfairly gathered and sloppily and unfairly considered. Lord Carlile told me on the day of publication that he, a distinguished QC, would have lost the case had he attempted to prosecute George Bell on such evidence. Given that a man is innocent until proven guilty, and it is plain that the Church has not proved George Bell guilty by any standard, he is therefore innocent.

The Archbishop's unlovely behaviour is licensing all kinds of people to shuffle and delay over important actions which are necessary to restore Bishop Bell's good name.

These include the return of his name to schools and buildings from which it was Stalinistically stripped, the re-hanging of various portraits and pictures of him which have been taken down or moved to less honoured positions, the revision of his Wikipedia entry which currently gives absurd credence to the allegations against him, the rewriting of the Chichester Cathedral guidebook, the renewed observance of the day which commemorates George Bell's memory in the Church calendar, the return to widespread use of the hymn 'Christ is the King, written by Bishop Bell, which some churches have abandoned since the allegations surfaced, and the re-starting of work on a sculpture of him commissioned by Canterbury cathedral, which was abandoned when the claims against him were first published:

'I see the Archbishop of Canterbury. Justin Welby, has been complaining about ‘fake news’. As well he might, since ‘fake news’ is a good description of the statement which Archbishop Welby’s church put out to the media, insinuating incorrectly that the late George Bell was a child molester.

Lord Carlile has now produced a devastating report which shows that statement was full of false claims. It said Bishop Bell would have been arrested if he’d still been alive, when he wouldn’t have been. It said there had been a thorough investigation - when there hadn’t been. It said experts had found no reason to doubt the charges, when one expert most definitely had found such a reason and clearly said so.

Yet despite this total demolition of a case that any court would have thrown out, Archbishop Welby continues to claim (more fake news?) that there is a ‘cloud’ over George Bell’s name, like some dim wiseacre in a pub, utterly defeated in an argument by facts and logic, intoning doggedly that ‘there’s no smoke without fire’. The only cloud over Bishop Bell’s name hangs there because Justin Welby’s pride prevents him from admitting he got it wrong. He knows what he needs to do.'

Perhaps, because of its severe and careful ,legal language, some people may not have realised just how devastating Lord Carlile's report was to the case against George Bell.

Share this article:

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Alan Thomas ** Well, if 'faith' had appeared as 'Faith', I might have twigged what you were on about, and refrained from entering the fray. As it was not, I did.
Incidentally, any lack of Faith on my part has not prevented me from thinking the actions of the C.of E. were not particularly wise or fair. **

So let's follow your logic. I wrote "Bad faith" which describes my impression of your approach to the debate which, I'm sorry to say, included intentions that aren't honourable in terms of the spirit of debate. Louise understood what I meant, which gives me confidence that I was correct about the "Bad Faith". This was proved by the fact that she responded to you which means she understood me (just to clarify for you). The faith I then speak of is in a different context and refers to God.
Tbh I'm going to conclude because this exchange has the air of progressive liberalism/globalist activist about it which involves wearing an opponent down by either pretending not to understand or using ludicrous and inappropriate labels. In the case of *most* progressive liberals/globalist activists my guess is they are genuinely thick but this does not apply to you fortunately. Good night and good luck

I am sorry, sir, for I see that I have not expressed my thought very well. Let me try again.
When I saw that you were referring to British history - in some cases of long ago - it reminded me that I myself had intended originally in connection with the theme of this discussion to ask with a little irony whether someone like the late Henry VIII was to be charged with having commited 'historic' offences against the person, as several others have lately post mortem been charged.
Your own references (along with other contributors' too) to persons from British history suggested to me that you had likewise seen the obvious connection between accusations made by people after the death of the accused which for one reason or another they had not made against the living and the case of King Henry..
I had not of course intended you any disrespect, sir, but rather the contrary and I certainly did not wish to suggest that anything transmitted electronically was automatically 'gossip'.
Thank you for kindly offering a definition of "gossip", a definition which seems to me pretty fair and accurate.
Incidentally, if Henry VIII is - as I suspect - not to be officially charged with 'historic' offences, why should other deceased persons, perhaps with lesser charges, if any at all, to answer, be publicly defamed with impunity, if deceased without having been arraigned before any court? It seems to me that, unless I am seriously mistaken, it is any British citizen's right to be under those conditions presumed innocent.
Perhaps defamations of the dead are simply not taken seriously and are treated simply as gossip.

I am sorry to read what you have written. I have never thought or meant that you ”disputed the value of justice”. But it is obvious that we have different views if this case should be pursued further or not.

My first post was partly the reaction to your message to Mr Hitchens:

”Your chances of persuading Archbishop Welby to admit that he was wrong are nil. You know the reason (…)

If I were you I would not become exercised over this refusal. You have done all you could in the sight of God. Concentrate on other, more promising projects.”
(Peter Starr | 04 January 2018)

I understand the first part but disagree with the latter part of your text.

Although it may look like being Quixotic to you, I think I’ll follow our host on this issue until coming to the point where an adequate end mark should be placed.

VikkiB..."With respect, we aren't living in an age where a King or Queen can intervene in parliament. That went centuries ago."

I thank you for your reply.
Who, then, do you think should step up and lead the revolution that will curb the excesses of corrupt politicians that is so sorely needed? It won't happen on its own!

As I said, the Queen has at her command the entire armed forces of the UK and those members of the commonwealth that consider her their Queen too - all have declared their allegiance and most would support her against a corrupt government if she had the courage to call on them to do so.
A person (Politician) took the powers to rule from a corrupt monarchy by force and there is no good reason why a monarch of her standing can't take it back.
Democracy can work both ways and should always serve the people.
Without individual bravery we would all be 'slaves in chains' and the way the world is being fashioned today it won't be long before that will become the norm.

Kings are created by God to rule His people - bad ones eventually die and things change. With politics, things can only get worse from generation to generation, as we are witnessing!

Food for thought; why do you think the politicians are transferring our forces - military and police - to the ownership and control of privateers?
Soon it will be too late for any one person to initiate any resistance!

I do not think I am that optimistic (you might have wanted to say ’naive’, but you were too polite?) and I am not expecting Archbishop Welby’s apology or resign either - *beside* a proper personal apologise to George Bell’s niece Ms Whitley. (I only know that they sent a e-mail to her in December - they probably have done better than that now but I am not aware of it.)

I think it was the BBC, who interviewed with her, wanted her to refer resign (they asked the very question to her and made a headline of it, as far as I remember.)

As I wrote in my former post, which I wrote before I read your latest comment, I wish the restoration of Bishop Bell’s good name to be done as much as possible.

If we, who care about the restoration, stop pursuing it further now, we are telling others, include our next generation, that we accept Welby’s view on Bishop Bell as he has stated ”a significant cloud is left over his name”. Moreover, we accept that the C of E is *satisfied* by the fact that the Review has been produced but they still deny certain points Lord Carlile has scrunitised and concluded - (i.e. among others to ruin the good name of Bishop George Bell by the Announcement in 2015).

I understand the following critical comments made after the publishing of the Carlile Review:

’Dr Ruth Hildebrandt Grayson, the daughter of Bishop Bell's friend Franz Hildebrandt, said Bishop Bell's family deserved a personal apology from the Archbishop and the Bishop of Chichester.

"The Church can't have its cake and eat it. Either he is innocent, in which case they must apologise, or he is guilty, which they can't prove, and the report makes clear that they have not proved," she told this newspaper.

Professor Andrew Chandler, Bell's biographer, said the Archbishop's statement was "wrong" and "illogical".

"It fails a basic test of rational justice,"he said. "It lacks an understanding of all kinds of dimensions which require compassion, not least in Chichester, where people feel deeply upset by this.”’

(’Archbishop criticised for refusing to clear bishop besmirched by the Church’. The Telegraph. 15 Dec. 2017)

How pedestrian of you, in spite of the fact that I have stated this very clearly, that you fail to understand that I am discussing what is possible in practice. Of course I never disputed the value of justice in the abstract. What is right in theory may be wrong in practice.

"Change places and, handy-dandy,
which is the justice, which is the thief?
A man may see how the world goes with no eyes.
Look with thine ears." (King Lear)

Mike B, thanks for the sledging anecdotes. I had a feeling poor McGrath's wife (being treated for cancer at the time) may have featured in one of those. I certainly remember the sledge about the biscuits. What naughty men!

And Botham's reply was masterful. I'll pay that! The one rule about sledging, as you know, is that you have to be prepared to take it.

"It was just a joke, Louise, relating to the spherical shape of the Earth..."

Thanks, I got the joke which was appreciated. I just thought you were making some other point, as is often the case. Right, no more cricket. Sorry, Mr Hitchens.

Michael Wood, many thanks for your reply. With respect, we aren't living in an age where a King or Queen can intervene in parliament. That went centuries ago. And I think our Queen has spent her entire reign serving the people of this country in a selfless, tireless and honourable way as has the Duke alongside her.

That said. Of course there have been times and situations that we would have liked her to come to our aid especially over the loss of our sovereignty to the EU. That is something I have wondered about and concluded that her advisers have told her that she isn't able to intervene. I think Blair's actions back then were tantamount to treason which is why, on that specific issue (giving away more powers to the EU) I hoped she could have done something or at the least, indicated that it was wrong. But I imagine she thought, damned if you do and damned if you don't as there will always be anti monarchs who will be critical.
Shame she doesn't have the powers of Henry viii. Now there was a King worthy of a kingdom. We have much to thank him for, quite apart from giving us, Elizabeth I.

Peter Preston ..."I knew that sooner or later this discussion was bound to get round to what school children call “history”. What, after all, is 'history' but story-telling – or, as modern electronic inventions have now made inevitable, simple gossip?"

'gossip ˈɡɒsɪp/ noun.....casual or unconstrained conversation or reports about other people, typically involving details which are not confirmed as true.'.......

.Michael Wood, I'm sorry if I've offended you….. it's just that what you say is so general? I think I understand that you don't like the wealthy globalist companies (?), the uber rich CFO's etc ?”
No, you haven’t offended me, you just continue to assume what I say rather than read what I say.

“ But to suggest that the Queen can do much about any of the problems we have in this country is frankly a bit optimistic, isn't it?”

No, it isn’t.
The Queen made a solemn vow to serve this country and her people.
The nation’s problems stem from political misrule - and the Queen has the powers to do something about it but is more concerned with her position and safety than the nation’s.
It’s that simple – as are most problems and their solutions.
She has the sworn allegiance of enough support – powerful and honourable support – to exercise her right to protect her people from misrule, lesser mortals have braved these situations without a second thought for themselves and prevailed - but she protects only her own family and its position from the same political threat that is betraying her people and kingdom.
God makes Kings to rule.
The wicked; politics to usurp God’s rule

Alan Thomas ** Once again, what is meant by 'not in good faith' and why it's 'rather ludicrous'? **

Louiseyvette answered your question adequately Alan. It's the people themselves. You asked me about contact details as if I'm talking about some tin pot national political party. No I'm talking about something bigger and more spiritual than that, it's about the people of an ancient land who are tied to that land by their tradition, culture, heritage and their bloodlines. You're probably thinking about Jeremy Corbyn or Nigel Farage or a local councillor! It was ludicrous because it's not thinking about people in a country and their collective shaped by God. This transcends "movements" which are all left in the dust of history in a few decades. Belief in God allows the person to think holistically whereas pointless little arguments about on line and official political movements aren't the issue. I mean a contact number??? Seriously? That's not what I'm talking about

louiseyvette quotes "Fortescue, Lord Chancellor of England during the reign of Henry VI," re; ""The King of England cannot alter the laws, or make new ones, without the express consent of the whole kingdom in Parliament assembled. ....etc"
That's all very well, but the reality was that Henry VIII did change laws and did make new ones and nobody stopped Him.

What happened, happened, and like the Magna Carta it was just words on paper and still is.
What are you trying to prove? That Henry VIII was a tyrant? Of course he was!

louiseyvette "..........Hence it is, that the inhabitants are rich in gold, silver, and in all the necessaries and conveniences of life. They drink no water, unless at certain times, upon a religious score, and by way of doing penance. They are fed, in great abundance, with all sorts of flesh and fish, of which they have plenty everywhere; they are clothed throughout in good woollens; their bedding and other furniture in their houses are of wool, and that in great store. They are also well provided with all other sorts of household goods and necessary implements for husbandry. Every one, according to his rank, hath all things which conduce to make life easy and happy."
Poor, impoverished, mediaeval peasants of England."

Now I know you're having a laugh - (please tell me you are)!
If not, and you are seriously trying to imply that this portrays the lifestyle of the average English peasant in the 15th century, then I suggest you find someone more gullible than me to 'throw' such a bouncer at.
However this would have been true for the land-owning, peasant-enslaving Barons of the aristocracy of the day and also the RC hierarchy and many of its Clergy.

-"So we need to acknowledge the limits of what can be achieved. Those who care are now able to be as sure as one can possibly be that Bishop Bell was innocent. But campaigning for an apology (1) achieves nothing, (2) may look vindictive to the many, and (3) risks turning into personal animosity. My approach is based on experience of trying to live as a Christian in today's England. There are more promising projects on which to concentrate one's efforts."-

This would be to argue or concede that those who unjustifiably traduced someone's good name should not do all that is within their power to restore it.

I also enjoyed your earlier '..Alan is right' comment, although I have to say the starting 'Alas' somewhat moderated my pleasure.
No matter, should we have to appoint a neutral umpire for this blog, you would be my first choice. Hopefully, that kind and generous thought means I won't be first to receive the dreaded upright-finder verdict...

”it seems to me that the Archbishop of Canterbury's refusal to accept the outcome of the independent inquiry by Lord Carlile QC - which he himself commissioned - into the George Bell case has become a scandal in its own right”.

I think if we, who take this case seriously, stop pursuing the restoration of the good name of Bishop Bell now with many different reasons, we might *help* the C o E to reach their real goal on this issue.

Archbishop Welby stated when they published the Carlile Review,
”We realise that a significant cloud is left over his name. Let us therefore remember his defence of Jewish victims of persecution, his moral stand against indiscriminate bombing…”

”Whatever is thought about the accusations, the whole person and whole life should be kept in mind.”

But Bishop Bell’s works and achievements are well documented, witnessed and historical facts but the accusation has not been proved. Why do these two completely different categories have to be treated on the same level, as for instance we read in Wikipedia?

Mr Hitchens points out

”The Archbishop's unlovely behaviour is licensing all kinds of people to shuffle and delay over important actions which are necessary to restore Bishop Bell's good name”.

”These include (I add the numbers to Mr Hitchens text):

1) the return of his name to schools and buildings from which it was Stalinistically stripped,

2) the re-hanging of various portraits and pictures of him which have been taken down or moved to less honoured positions,

3) the revision of his Wikipedia entry which currently gives absurd credence to the allegations against him,

4) the rewriting of the Chichester Cathedral guidebook,

5) the renewed observance of the day which commemorates George Bell's memory in the Church calendar,

6) the return to widespread use of the hymn 'Christ is the King, written by Bishop Bell, which some churches have abandoned since the allegations surfaced,

7) the re-starting of work on a sculpture of him commissioned by Canterbury cathedral, which was abandoned when the claims against him were first published”.

I think it might be needed to create a new independent article in Wikipedia with a title, for instance, ’The George Bell Case’ basically based on the Carlile Review and things and comments come after the publishing of the Review. I have ideas but I do not have adequate skills (in English & editing) needed…

(To the moderator: Could this contribution, if found appropriate for the forum, replace the similar one which I submitted earlier. Thank you.)

Contributor Michael Wood wrote:

“It's pointless looking at feudal England and its all-powerful King and condemning its customs and his actions as being any different to what is being inflicted upon a large proportion of the population today”

I knew that sooner or later this discussion was bound to get round to what school children call “history”. What, after all, is 'history' but story-telling – or, as modern electronic inventions have now made inevitable, simple gossip?
Of course, if the story-tellers are eloquent and engaging, and such as A.J.P. Taylor or David Starkey, their histories can be very agreeable and entertaining but the widespread teaching of 'history' in schools, (often, I would guess, to informees already tv-charmed into accepting even the most unlikely tales) seems to me to have produced a population only too happy to be told stories.
As the late Malcolm Muggeridge once asked, if anyone should come to write a history of our age, how on earth would he be able to distinguish any truth from all the fictions and the fantasies and from any lies and half-truths? Our age, as he pointed out, is suffering from a superabundance of documentation. It seems to me that as a result any such historian must soon find himself completely baffled into silence.

Michael Wood, I'm sorry if I've offended you. I wasn't jumping on Alan's bandwagon, it's just that what you say is so general? I think I understand that you don't like the wealthy globalist companies (?), the uber rich CFO's etc ? But to suggest that the Queen can do much about any of the problems we have in this country is frankly a bit optimistic, isn't it? She really can't do much these days, isn't allowed to and for the sake of the continuing of the monarchy, wouldn't I would suggest. Just a thought.

To Ky, who writes: "When we talk about the recovery of the good name of Bishop Bell, it is crucial that *many* people should understand that the great injustice has been done... by the leader(s) of the C of E, i. e. Archbishop Welby (and Bishop Warner and some more)."

I am less optimistic than you. Firstly, even if the Archbishop were to apologise, or resign, or even consent to be whipped through the streets of Chichester in the medieval style, his replacement would be just as bad. Secondly, most people - even most church-going Anglicans - don't know or care about Bishop Bell. As for the great British public, anyone in a cassock is by definition suspect.

So we need to acknowledge the limits of what can be achieved. Those who care are now able to be as sure as one can possibly be that Bishop Bell was innocent. But campaigning for an apology (1) achieves nothing, (2) may look vindictive to the many, and (3) risks turning into personal animosity. My approach is based on experience of trying to live as a Christian in today's England. There are more promising projects on which to concentrate one's efforts.

It was just a joke, Louise, relating to the spherical shape of the Earth, though I understand from past threads that some who contribute to this blog are yet to be convinced of this. I am sure, though, that you are not one of them.

Of course, the Aussies are master 'sledgers', though they have to take it on occasions, as well. Two aimed at Glen McGrath are particularly noteworthy, though their content means that they wouldn't get past the moderator here. You can look them up, though, if you wish Those dishing it out were Eddo Brandes, a somewhat portly tail end Zimbabwean batsman, and Ramnaresh Sarwan of the West Indies .

One which might get through involved an altercation between Rod Marsh and Ian Botham. When the latter went out to bat, he was greeted by Marsh with:

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the moderator has approved them. They must not exceed 500 words. Web links cannot be accepted, and may mean your whole comment is not published.